WSJ/NBC poll: Obama 47, Romney 43

posted at 9:53 pm on May 22, 2012 by Allahpundit

Gotta blog it since it’s the big national poll of the day, but the results are mainly uninteresting and subject to a sample skew. Last month’s WSJ poll had it 43D/39R/14I if you included leaners. The new poll: 44D/36R/16I. The spread between Democrats and Republicans has increased by four points since April — and yet O’s lead over Romney has shrunk by two points. Hmmmm.

And regarding Romney’s past work at the private-equity firm Bain Capital, the poll shows that 9 percent have a positive view of the firm and 19 percent have a negative view; 53 percent either weren’t sure or weren’t familiar with it.

I’m highly skeptical that O is leading among seniors, and if he’s leading among indies, it ain’t by eight points. Note the good news about Bain, though: Obama’s campaign is intent on changing those numbers but for now Romney’s business record is no serious liability. On the contrary:

The top two lines in the table above are the big ones, needless to say. On the other hand, there’s this:

Despite the public thumbs up for Romney’s business record, he’s merely even right now with a guy who just spent three years presiding over eight/nine/ten percent unemployment. That seems … a bad place to start from, even with the Democratic sample skew. And especially when you consider that, after a burst of hope in March, people are starting to resign themselves to further economic stagnation:

The one other intriguing data point from the crosstabs is the split on gay marriage. Previous polls taken after O’s “evolution” have shown a backlash to his announcement but this one has things shaking out roughly evenly:

The fallout from the announcement splits here 17/20, but again, that’s being skewed because of the pro-Democratic sample. The actual numbers are likely a bit stronger in opposition.

Follow the link and read down to the end of MSNBC’s analysis for a fascinating, and ominous, comparison between the numbers in this race and the numbers in Bush vs. Kerry in 2004. The basic data is strikingly similar in both races, although of course Bush had a big advantage via the war on terror at the time to help carry him over the finish line. What’s O’s big advantage? The Buffett Rule?

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Obama will lose by a landslide…..
Unless this country is populated by complete morons….

nazo311 on May 22, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Someone said several months ago that “a lawn gnome” could beat Obama. I am starting to believe it.

BUT, this is a state by state election. Obama didn’t win West Virginia, Kentucky, or Arkansas in 2008 so the recent poor showing against criminals, uncommitted, some random lawyer, don’t matter. What matters is in performance in states he won last time.

The basic data is strikingly similar in both races, although of course Bush had a big advantage via the war on terror at the time to help carry him over the finish line. What’s O’s big advantage? The Buffett Rule?

Obama has the same advantage in kind of opposite directions… people are tired of war… the establishment right will ignore this but that is Romney and the GOP’s biggest weakness and I honestly think that IF Romney loses it will be over foreign policy.

You mean the guy who struggled in a primary against a convicted felon, is struggling to get 60% against Mr. Uncommited in KY. and may give up a 1/3 of his popularity to Mr Wolfe in AR., who didn’t file in time so cannot win regardless—THAT OBAMA IS AT 47%?

When I see a media sponsored pole I start laughing immediately knowing that it will be for their Greek God they worship no matter what. The media is a joke and this November I’ll enjoy their crying foul.

Not a good poll, as Mitt is going backwards. He’s already playing a prevent defense, but you only do that when you’re winning. Really, you shouldn’t do that at all.
Why do I call it a prevent defense? 3 months ago he said the election was about the “soul of the country.” He’s etch – e – sketched that away, and dumbed it down to being just about the economy. He’s doesn’t seem to have the guts to say it’s about anything bigger. A prevent defense will lose.
You see it in the banner ads, also. There’s 1 right here on this hotair page, right now, saying: “Romney, Get America Working Again.” Not good.

But look, it easy, just frame the election in terms like the Crossroads GPS “Basketball” ad. The election is about a runaway out of control intrusive govt, that is spending $ like crazy. That’s it. The economy is too mundane and temporary, emphasize the bigger issue of an out of control govt.

Oh what a disgrace if such a despicable and base man, who hates America and it’s constitution and all Christians and all Jews, and worships himself, should be allowed to assault a people which has the faith of omnipotent God! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if we do not promptly and fully aid those who’s conscience is being brutalized and murdered because the profess the Christian religion! Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against other of the faithful now all unite and go against the tyrant in a Holy Crusade and end with total victory in November!

Let those who have been in service of this tyrant against their own brothers and sisters now fight in a proper way against this tyrant. Let those who have been wearing themselves out in both body and soul in vain attempt to appease him now labor for glorious honor against him. Behold! On the one side will be the completely destroyed tyrant, on the other the fierce and righteous protectors of the Constitution and Christianity. On the one side will be the destroyed enemy of the Lord, on the other, his friends who will shout at the tyrant as they destroy him in November, “It is for the Founding Fathers!”, “It is for the Founding Fathers!, and “It is the will of God! It is the will of God!”

Barack Obama in the highest office in the land, parley-voo?
Barack Obama in the highest office in the land, parley-voo?
He can sink the economy and campaign and vacation a great deal
But taking any responsibly whatsoever to him just does not appeal
He has less class than the back of a hack
When he morns for anyone but himself the tears run down his back
If he would just take responsibility sometime somewhere
The MSM frogs would probably give him the Croix-de-Guerre
Hinky, dinky, parley-voo

On a statistical note here, why does the WSJ/NBC poll tend to poll so many fewer independents than the others? For that matter, why do Gallup, Rasmussen, et al poll so many more independents than WSJ/NBC?

“…but the results are mainly uninteresting and subject to a sample skew…”

Skew… or bias. I suggest standard institutional bias in order to prevent a preference cascade in the generally misinformed public. Those who don’t follow politics will glom on to the trend so as not to appear ignorant. Everyone loves a winner, right? So, the best tactic from a systemically corrupt polling apparatus is to put metaphorical fingers on the scale to thwart momentum in the Right’s favor.

Ask your friends, “Are you better off now than you were before Team Obama and his Marxist czars and do you approve of America’s current trajectory?” Ask your neighbors the same thing. And your coworkers. And your family if you have to. You can even keep the question loaded as I did. You’ll get the same response. In short Obama remains a SCoaMF and no published poll will convince you otherwise. The goal now is to follow who is propping up such bias and to a) apply that knowledge to any other topic of coverage they produce, and 2) disregard their conclusions in the future.

Right wingers are pretty excited about Obama not getting 90% of the vote in the Democratic primaries in deep red states, but the President just won more votes than the Republican presumptive nominee in…. KENTUCKY!!!
I bet you won’t read that in HotGas.

Someone said several months ago that “a lawn gnome” could beat Obama. I am starting to believe it.

BUT, this is a state by state election. Obama didn’t win West Virginia, Kentucky, or Arkansas in 2008 so the recent poor showing against criminals, uncommitted, some random lawyer, don’t matter. What matters is in performance in states he won last time.

crosspatch on May 22, 2012 at 10:11 PM

That was me, and after the WI primary, I’d make book on it. For sure Romney needs to take states away from Obama. Let’s start with NC–that is going to flip into “lean Romney” any day now. After the recall, WI will start trending Romney also. Florida is a dead heat right now. But Romney needs to start making his case, not just hammering Obama’s ineptitude. I posted the following on my FB page for my son’s lib teacher who is disillusioned with Obama, and asked me to “make the case” for Romney. Here’s what I came up with. If it seems a little simplified, remember who it was I was writing for.

Considering that the US is like a big huge corporation that is in financial trouble, I’d say Romney’s developed some very applicable skill sets through his work with Bain. If he’s been a successful CEO, then he’s learned how to work with a team, how to motivate others, how and when to delegate, how build unity of purpose, esprit de corps, the art of the deal–so I think from that he will be very effective at dealing with Congress. Reagan, for example, passed a ton of legislation through a Democratic congress, because he was able to do the combination of cajoling, deal-making, arm-twisting, etc, that was necessary to get there. I think Romney will be similarly successful, which is part of why I hope the Senate remains Democrat by a narrow margin, so that the bills he passes will be bi-partisan. One of Obama’s biggest failings is he never learned to work with Congress. He didn’t even work with the Democrats in Congress, much less the Republicans. The problem there was that Healthcare Reform passed without a single Republican vote, not even Collins, Snowe or McCain, and they’ve made a career out of crossing the aisle. As a result he couldn’t claim a bi-partisan outcome, *with shared responsibility for the outcome.* Romney won’t let that happen, bc he understands how important it is to spread the responsibility around. Romney has this track record of accurate analysis, careful planning, and effective implementation–doing what is necessary to get the job done right, not just throwing mud up on the wall and seeing what sticks, which has been Obama’s approach to the economy. Romney also understands the markets, what kinds of factors influence business decisions, which is crucial to getting the economy going again, because it is businesses that will lead the way out of the mess by adding new jobs.

I think Romney needs to start breaking it down for the American people, along these lines.

I’m sure it’s something I am completely unaware of. But why does the WSJ keep teaming up with NBC for polling?

Hog Wild on May 22, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Virtually all of the “team-ups” for polling is for financial reasons: news outfits cut their own polling sections long ago, and must pay someone else to do it for them, so they team up and split the costs.

There is no excuse for these samples, though. I would refuse to pay the bill.

I think Romney needs to start breaking it down for the American people, along these lines.

smellthecoffee on May 22, 2012 at 11:42 PM

..taking into account your audience (and I mean no disrespect towards the disillusioned Obama-supporting teacher), you did a very good job. Your logic was sound, you language was non-confrontational, and, if the teacher has a reasonable bone in his/her body, he/she should carefully consider your arguments.

I don’t think anybody in 2008 was predicting McCain would win by a landslide. Well, maybe the MSM while the primaries were still in progress and they were trying to push the narrative that McCain was the most “electable” candidate. No conservative ever thought that of McCain, we knew he was a flawed candidate and were hoping for him to squeak past the jug-eared marxist from Chicago by way of Hawaii by way of Indonesia by way of Kenya (per his own press release).

Obama has the same advantage in kind of opposite directions… people are tired of war… the establishment right will ignore this but that is Romney and the GOP’s biggest weakness and I honestly think that IF Romney loses it will be over foreign policy.

ninjapirate on May 22, 2012 at 10:13 PM

I agree with this. It’s never about just one thing, like the economy. It’s the overall sense people get of who a candidate is and where he might take the country. At least Bush had daughters; with Romney’s five strapping sons, people are going to be asking some impolite questions if we go to war, no matter how much the establishment has convinced itself that both the military and the country think an all-volunteer army is perfectly OK.

Take any poll you want…the real polls were last night, Obama almost lost to “uncommitted” and had a tough fight with a nobody, without a budget…with under 20% of the people voting.
People are not “moved” to vote for Obama, and that is to Mitt’s advantage.
The weakest personality we could have placed on the ticket has a chance because dems are going to stay home and not vote.
It’s up to us to, gulp, go out and actually vote to replace Obama.

Mitt should be up by double digits, with record energy prices, record unemployment, nothing about this administration is positive, but he is just barely hanging on.

His only chance is that we have the numbers to overwhelm the placid and beaten down dems.

What a horrible situation, but at least (by whatever) he is in the running, we know it’s not his policies…

I think Romney needs to start breaking it down for the American people, along these lines.

smellthecoffee on May 22, 2012 at 11:42 PM

But the U.S. in not like a large corporation, nor can it be run like one.
Corporations are created to make a profit…the Government should not make a profit…Corporations expand, our gov. should be reduced…there is hardly anything about the gov. that is the same as a Corporation.

It’s a fallacy that the same skill sets that run businesses, also run governments.
Is Buffet elected each year to his position? Was Bill Gates elected each year to his position? Do you think Mitt had to run for his Bain office, campaign, raise money? No, he had to earn profits to retain his position, do you want the gov. to make a profit from you? The only way a gov. makes a profit is by taxing you…and that is what Mitt did in Mass, raised “fees”, since taxes you had to vote on, fees you could administrate without a vote.

For him to be elected to Mass, he had to turn his back on his faith, capitulate to the dems, and deny any relationship with conservative Republican’s like Ronald Reagan.

If Mitt is elected our only hope is that we also win the Senate, because like all of his supporters say, he can’t fight the dems he had to give in.

Thanks! :-) I got a “like” out of him, but no comment. Some of his pals were less than thrilled, much to my delight. Heh heh.

But the U.S. in not like a large corporation, nor can it be run like one. Corporations are created to make a profit…the Government should not make a profit…Corporations expand, our gov. should be reduced…there is hardly anything about the gov. that is the same as a Corporation. right2bright on May 23, 2012 at 8:08 AM

I didn’t mention that Romney was also governor of Massachusetts, and so he brings government experience to the table as well as corporate. When I wrote “the US is like a big huge corporation that is in financial trouble,” I should have written, the US is like a big huge corporation in that it is in financial trouble”, because that was what I was getting at. That Romney has the people skills, negotiating, delegating, motivating, etc, and the analytical, problem solving skills, that in my opinion, ought to transfer well to being a chief executive. Look, of the aforementioned, which did Obama have? Might it have helped if he’d had like, one of them? Uh, yeah. Mitt has all of them and that can only be to the good.

You think Mitt raised taxes because he equated them in his monomanaically business-driven mind as profits? He raised taxes, but I doubt that was why. He’s a lot smarter than you’re giving him credit for. I think he adapts himself and his approach to the situation he is in (Etch-a-sketch), and being a Republican governor in a Democrat tax and spend state, he followed the culture that he was working in. That is a big red flag for us, of course, just as it should have been for Bush, who also got along chummily with the Texas Democrats in his state government. We’re going to have to hold Romney’s feet to the fire, no question. What I’m hoping we’ll see though, is that his adaption to this situation, his understanding of what’s wrong with the economy–and the role that debt is playing in that–will lead him to take a harder line on spending than he would have otherwise. He isn’t going to be presiding over any credit-rating downgrades, at any rate. That may be over-optimistic; like I said, we’re going to have to hold his feet to the fire. But he is smart, has a ton of skills, is used to succeeding, and knows how to succeed–there’s reason to be cautiously optimistic, in my opinion.